Deciphering Polls About “Merit” Selection And Judicial Elections
January 22, 2009
The American Judicature Society and the Washington State Judicial Selection Coalition have just released the results of a Fall 2008 survey of “citizen perceptions about the way in which the state’s judges are selected.” (Thanks to Shira Goodman at JudgesOnMerit for her post alerting me to the survey.)
There’s a lot to chew on in the 23-page report, including several pages of throat-clearing designed to convince us that the survey provided “an accurate, non-leading description of how judges actually are selected” and that the portrayals of merit selection and judicial elections were “factually accurate and presented in a neutral manner.” Here are a few initial observations:
- The survey was funded by vociferous opponents of democratic judicial elections, suggesting the project was highly biased from the start.
The report acknowledges on pg. 2 that “primary funding” was provided by the American Judicature Society (which opposes democratic elections) and the Open Society Institute (which is spending millions to promote “merit” selection). Additional funding was provided by the Washington State Bar Association, which would have a prominent role in any commission-based system – a role which was never revealed to survey participants.
- The survey descriptions of Washington’s current system of contested elections and a competing commission-based system were neither fair nor neutral.
The description of Washington’s judicial election system includes an extremely leading “however” sentence, included primarily to persuade voters they currently have little impact over who sits on the bench. The description concludes with the observation that in 2008, “84% of judicial elections are uncontested.” Of course, the authors never mention that under “merit” selection, 100% of judicial elections would be uncontested.
The authors tell voters that a “merit” selection commission is “bipartisan,” “broad-based” and “made up of lawyers and non-lawyers from across the state.” The best that can be said about this description is that it creates a highly misleading impression of how judicial nominating commissions really work. No mention is made of the powerful role that legal special interest groups – such as state bar associations and state trial lawyers associations – typically have in appointing commissioners and controlling who sits on the bench.
This description closes with a reassuring sentence designed solely to persuade voters that “retention elections” would still give them the last word on whether a judge remains in office. Unlike the judicial election description, no information is provided informing voters than under retention elections, judges are virtually guaranteed reelection. (In Tennessee, according to Vanderbilt University Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, 145 out of the 146 judges who have stood for retention election have been returned to office.)
- Despite these highly biased and leading descriptions, Washington voters still express surprisingly strong support for democratic elections and have a high regard for the judges chosen under this system.
On pg. 11 of the report, we learn that even after reading the highly biased and misleading descriptions of judicial elections and “merit” selection, nearly 7 out of 10 (68%) respondents have a favorable view of non-partisan elections, such as Washington currently uses, and nearly 2 out of 3 (64%) have a positive view of contested elections. Voters with a positive view about advertising by judicial candidates outweigh those with a negative view by more than 10 percentage points.
Buried on pg. 21, the authors grudgingly report that 65% of respondents believe that judges chosen under the current election system are “qualified” and nearly 3 out of 5 say Washington’s current judges are “honest and trustworthy” and “fair and impartial.” Only 16% describe Washington’s elected or appointed judges as being “for sale.”
More to come later as I spend a little more time digesting this report.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections, Tort Reform, Trial Lawyers
2 Responses to “Deciphering Polls About “Merit” Selection And Judicial Elections”
[...] of Washington state voters and their attitudes about judicial elections vs. “merit” selection a little squirrely. The fact that the survey was funded by the American Judicature Society and George Soros’ Open [...]
Most of us do not pay attention to the election of judges until it affects them peronally. I was involved in a civil lawsuit which by every indication I should have won. However, the sitting Governor(Vilsak) inappropriately intervened. Judge MaryAnn Brown had been appointed by the Governor and she complied with his wishes. My opposing party in the trial was a long time friend of the Governor. Well you know the outcome. Dam the law, dam common sense, corporation documents and the Uniform Business Code. The decision was appealed, and was rubber stamped. The system did not work and as a result I voted against every Judge on the ballot this past November.
Dixie Burkhart
Facts Don’t Matter
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/FactsDontMatter.htm